Thursday assorted links


I can't tell if Tyler is becoming more of a leftist or if it's just me drifting right.

Its not about being left or right, its about saying whatever will raise your status the most.

Somehow, I think the parentheses commenters below are doing it all wrong then. Unless they are lusting after some snappy Hugo Boss designed apparel, of course.

Don't worry, it's just you unquestioningly following the "ideology" of whomever happens to have "Republican" next to their candidate badge.

I think it boils down to Tyler Cowen is not a brave man.

But then again, we're all anons. Glass house and all....

+1. Going with the flow is just ordinary human behavior and lots of the MR comment section will be doing the same thing, and not solely because they fear for their jobs. How honest are all you guys around your friends and family members? Cowen linked to Alexander's piece. Many hundreds of people will read it now. In this day, he's already done more for "the cause" than most of you will.

Not true - it takes a rare type of courage to do what Prof. Cowen does.

Well, I suppose he shows little worry over the fate of his immortal soul, but I'm not sure what you have in mind.

Tyler might be getting more Straussian, as he worries about potential punishment from his fellow academics and intellectuals for failing to toe their ideological line.

However, Tyler should consider that other academics and intellectuals may be doing the same thing, and they may all be doing it poorly, such that he isn't actually in so much danger from openly stating his views as he thinks. Perhaps doing so would instead allow his fellows to escape from their poorly constructed Straussian closets.

I think he's hedging, waiting to see how everything will go. Already, with this Bannon nonsense, the (((lobby))) is forced to treat Trump with some level of respect as they beg him to reconsider. You could see the media establishment grudgingly respecting Trump in order to marginalize the alt right, giving Tyler plausible deniability to do the same.

Straussian clue: Scott Alexander has lived all his life in the USA (I guess, really not sure).

Did Tyler grow up in the South? Because otherwise, I don't see what "experience" he has. Maybe that's the point.

I am baffled about exactly what naïveté Alexander is supposedly showing there, myself.

Contra Cowen, he is not denying that racism exists or minimizing its existence ... but a "deep experience with racism" makes me think Cowen is overstating it.

A more fleshed out argument as to why the polls (as used by Alexander as evidence) and such aren't the argument he thinks they are might be convincing.

"It's naive" is far less so; I read SSC every weekday, as I do MR, and I want a better critique of a well-reasoned and evidenced piece than that.

He lived in Fall River, Mass. from 1966 to 1970. I think you'd have to scrounge to find places in this country which could be called 'deeply racist' after 1970; Mississippi is where you'd look. Maybe some of the ruder and uglier neighborhoods in Chicago and environs. Then again, you could define 'deeply racist' as the sort of place where you might have a rude exchange with the oppressor's woman in an elevator. Works for Ta-Nahesi Coates.

There is plenty of racism in plenty of places in the U.S. As you can see by the Trump voter geography, there's more of it in rural areas than in cities, on average. But there's plenty in cities too. Some places have very little. Depends on where you live. Seattle gets no prizes for racism. Most of their minorities are Asians, who are quiet and knock themselves out to fit in. Lots of rural areas, in probably every state, do take prizes for racism.

I vaguely recall Cicero, Illinois (Al Capone's old town) having a cross-burning on the lawn of a black family that had just moved in around 1983. Interestingly, Cicero residents didn't discriminate against Mexicans and now it's overwhelmingly Hispanic.

In the same era, Oak Park, just to the north of Cicero, had an illegal "black a block" racial quota that it imposed on its realtors to keep Oak Park majority white. That illegal practice succeeded and now Oak Park remains majority white, and is very liberal and quite gay.

I'm pretty sure Scott did his MD in Ireland.

The most interesting thing to me in that article was that a Vox survey found 7% of respondents had bad feelings about heterosexuals. I don't know how much of the population is gay, but I suppose it could be as high as 7%. But that assumes 100% of the gay population has bad feelings about heterosexuals, and that couldn't possibly be true or close to true. Much more likely is that most of this 7% does not know what the word "heterosexual" means, but whatever it is they're against it.

I thought the Scott Alexander piece was very good, and very important. But it's easy enough to riposte, as Tyler says about Scott Alexander, "Thor, you are a Nordic guy in the Pacific Northwest, what do you know about racism?"

It was good, Tyler's comment indicates that he didn't read or comprehend it.

How does it matter to what he wrote that Alexander did or didn't live under something Tyler calls "deeply" racist? I can't make sense of it.

Scott's piece is thought-provoking, but he ignores or glosses over numerous instances of Trump being pretty racist - substantially more racist, I think that McCain or Romney (who I think are mostly Avenue Q-style "everyone's a little bit" racist such that they're not especially worthy of being singled out). E.g. his remarks about Judge Curiel or birtherism.

And the Central Park Five.

Can you explain to me why the "birther" movement was racist? Is that something that would have happened for any black guy or only one whose father was a foreign national and who spent a lot of his youth overseas?

>Can you explain to me why the “birther” movement was racist?

Because it was spectacular nonsense that preyed on fears that Obama was secretly some traitorous foreign Other. That fact that it could have been trivially discredited by the most cursory understanding of US citizenship law is just icing on the cake.

Cliff was lucky enough to miss all the memes of Obama depicted as an African medicine man with a bone through his nose. Convenient. Or maybe that meet his bar for racism? Stuff's getting redefined all over these days.

Warwick the Wild,
"That fact that it could have been trivially discredited by the most cursory understanding of US citizenship law is just icing on the cake."

This is not accurate, if you are referring to someone who actually believed Obama was born on foreign soil (which I am not aware of there being any reasonable evidence for, to be clear). There is a very reasonable (I think convincing) argument to be made that those born on foreign soil, even if entitled to U.S. Citizenship according to current law, are not eligible for the Presidency - unless they are born there because their parents were located there as part of serving the U.S. (so those born to ambassadors or members of the military serving overseas would not be disqualified). Thus, Ted Cruz, for instance, is not eligible to by President by this argument.

Why Ted Cruz Is Not a Natural Born Citizen Eligible to Be President and Why the Issue Is Not a Political Question

Long before Trump a newspaper clipping announcing Obama's birth in Hawaii was produced, and establishment conservatives like John Derbyshire said it was an open and shut case. Trump re-opened, and people like Newt Gingrich and Dnesh D'Souza dog whistled by criticizing Obamas "Kenyan anti-colonialist" mindset (whatever that means)

Not bein having been a birther, I can't say for sure, but I suspect that birtherism had less to do with Obama's race than with the fact that:

1. His father was a foreigner in the US only temporarily,
2. He lived much of his childhood overseas, raised by an Indonesian stepfather,
3. His mother's connection to the country was somewhat tenuous.

Add to that a dose of wishful thinking, and there's plenty there to explain it without taking his race into account at all. There's no way it could have gotten off the ground if he were a "typical" black American whose ancestors came over as slaves in the 18th century.

Yea the birtherism stuff was racist. For a very small minority of birthers it might have been sincere.

1. Might it not have worked if Obama had a 'traditional' father relative to other black Americans? Someone who was born in the US and never even left it once to visit a foreign nation? No probably not. But this assumes racism can't be smart, only stupid. Clearly most racists know not all attacks work on all members of a class they are against. An anti-semite can go on and on about George Soros secretly controlling banks and the media but that wouldn't apply to a Jewish single mom on food stamps and about to get evicted from her apartment for not paying rent.

2. Selective enforcement of the 'rule'. John McCain was born on foreign soil. Yet the issue hardly was raised against him. Before you say he had US do you know? Perhaps his mom had an affair with a foreign worker in Panama? The standard of proof that Obama was not born in HI was very low, more on the lines of "anything plausible or partly plausible that I make up is true unless you can prove me wrong".

3. The fact that movement more or less disappeared once it's true purpose (denying Obama office) became moot. Notice how Trump casually tossed birthers aside in the debates and no one objected. If birthers really believed their story they would feel betrayed that the one man who took them seriously would suddenly reverse course on them, instead of promising to vindicate them when he took power by getting to the true truth.

Selective enforcement of the ‘rule’. John McCain was born on foreign soil. Yet the issue hardly was raised against him. Before you say he had US parents

John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, which was under U.S. jurisdiction for 75 years. His father was a naval officer. American statutory law made clear his status.

The fact that movement more or less disappeared once it’s true purpose (denying Obama office) became moot.

It largely disappeared when BO released his long form birth certificate.

Not bein having been a birther, I can’t say for sure, but I suspect that birtherism had less to do with Obama’s race than with the fact that:

You're neglecting the class of people who make crap up and who subscribe to and recycle the crap other people make up. Vulgar Kennedy assassination aficionadoes will provide you with examples of this type. By all appearances, the motivation is self-aggrandizing - a one upsmanship built around being in the know (in a fanciful sense). If you've visited the site The Conservative Treehouse, you've seen these fantasists among the moderators and among the commenters. Look at some substrands of the birther discourse, such as the collecting pool of fictions about Frank Marshall Davis (who these types will assure you is 'obviously' the father of BO).

You also have a class of tricorn hats always babbling on about The Constitution! At the intersection of these two, you have people recycling crap about late 18th century law in conjunction with fanciful 'proofs' that Eleanor Darragh Cruz's birth certificate was forged.

None of this has anything to do with race. It does have something to do with what an odd collection of hobbyists do to make themselves feel better about life.

It's hard to know. I think Scott deeply underestimates how many votes you can get in the US by saying things that are ambiguously racist (not *openly* racist stuff) -- most people who are racist do not think of themselves that way (which is good, they will not veer into open racism themselves) but they'll respond with some kind of rationalization, "he's telling it like it is" etc. It shores up his anti-establishment street cred too.

Personally, I don't like Trump, but I doubt he's a racist, even secretly -- but I do think he deliberately tried to court these 'soft-racist' voters, which is sociopathic and irresponsible because it has the potential to escape his control. My hope is that he's deft enough to tamp down on this sort of thing now that he doesn't need it (and that he doesn't court it further in anticipation of 2020). He's certainly shown talent for this kind of thing in the past year, so I'm guardedly hopeful about this.

Finally, I think my liberal friends and everyone who's freaking out so much forget how awful GWB was. Just 10 years ago, there was a serious push for a *constitutional amendment* against marriage equality. Trump has shown no inclination of the sort (ok, yes, Pence is different). If you're a social liberal, consider that American culture shifted dramatically leftward during those years despite GWB. I highly doubt it'll stop now.

"I think Scott deeply underestimates how many votes you can get in the US by saying things that are ambiguously racist (not *openly* racist stuff) "

What? It's been like 50 years ago since we'd have it.

*cough West Virginia *cough

I suspect Tyler's readership is far more moderate than the average MR commenter.

While my politics do not always align with Tyler's, I still respect him enough to expect even handed assessment of the economic implications (good or bad) of Trump's presidency.

I'm a liberal for sure, but I believe I stopped reading Krugman's blog all together once I found this.

Anyways, I look forward to further insights, even if I don't always agree with the conclusions.

Well, it now seems that the parentheses commenters have arrived - they are pretty much less moderate than everybody, or at least like to pretend that on the Internet.

Glad you proved yourself to be one of the good liberals, Rob, by hating Krugman. I'm sure you have favorably impressed all the Right of Center commenters here by saying that.

Krugman is a right wing hack.

Do you believe Trump will make US infrastructure the best in the world creating so many jobs the Rust Belt goes back to prosperity and the inner cities no longer have minorities in poverty?

Do you believe Trump will make America Great!?

If you are highly skeptical, does that make you leftist?

Trump has jumped the Reagan shark and promised endless free lunches.

Conservatives have either rewritten history to say Reagan cut taxes and government and the result was a fantastic 1987-1992 economy. Which makes 2006-2011 seem shocking, even though the latter is a rerun of the former in almost every aspect.

Or conservatives argue Reagan was the great betrayer in hiking taxes and making government much bigger forever.

I'm old enough to remember Social Security being in almost constant crisis with Congress intervening every couple of years to "save it." Reagan is the one who is responsible for putting Social Security on autopilot and totally outside the control of even a Congressional majority because mere delay in Congress blocks action until the populist make it clear "hands off".

Conservatives are blind to the effects of their policies being debated. 2006 went Democratic in Congress because of anything but the push to privatize Social Security which was drastically cut back in the two years of debate. And the arguments in 2000 that investing Social Security in the stock market would result in bigger monthly payments and lower taxes just like Calpers was paying higher pensions while being forced to cut payments to comply with Federal law on pension fund balance limits intended to block tax dodging. (Ie, non-public corporations expensing pension contributions to shift profits into tax exempt pension funds totally controlled by the owners as tax sheltered slush funds.)

But back to Reagan, he hiked taxes 125% to fund a huge increase in infrastructure spending when unemployment was 10.8%. If he had not done so, he would have been defeated in 2004.

The Fed policy did not change in any quantitative way in 1983. Money supply growth rates did not increase in 1983.

So, Trump is promising Reagan myth policies. Tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts and massive infrastructure spending and Social Security forever with the economy of 1994 to 2000 resulting in 2018 at the latest. Or maybe the growth of 1961 to 1969 that followed Reagan's policies being implemented in 1981.

I'm sure you think I'm a leftist but I was a moderate in the 60s in line with Nixon's economics which were mainstream in the left and right coasts which were significantly Republican: first agree that the benefits justify the spending, then levy the taxes to pay for the benefits, not the spending.

No one believes Trump is going to bring US Steel back to Birmingham, AL or "renegotiation" NAFTA and stop Ford from bnulduing plants in Mexico.

Trump ran on racial resentment and that people believe in like a religion.

He did?

Maybe go read that post Tyler calls naive, and then show us the "racial resentment" with primary evidence?

Still not seeing it.

Just to save everyone's time, your link is to a story about Trump re-tweeting an unrelated tweet (about Jeb) by a guy with a Twitter username @whitegenocide

And nothing says "no racial resentment here" like "white genocide". if you follow further it also points out Trump has re-tweeted this particular user many times including with fake crime stats from a Neo nazi operation.

In all seriousness, why would neonazis need to fake crime statistics?

I think he ran on xenophobia and fear of the other. Racism was in the mix, but not at the fore - the most direct appeal Trump made was birtherism.

There is no such thing as 'xenophobia'. It's rhetorical gamesmanship by the dishonest;.

I think what happened was Tyler would say something once

and then assume intelligent readers would remember it. His oblique questions and pointers were not coy admissions of the opposing view after all.

Now he has decided to be more explicit, and the surprising number if readers who thought they had the secret message should reconsider.

I s

I'm like Tyler. Racism and anti-racism are a religion, but I'm a heathen. I agree with his take on SSC, but it's p obvious he's being coy with Sailer.

Ditto, but I've been moving to the left myself, albeit reluctantly.

1) Tyler is likely terrified of retubruition from the left if he says anything nearly as brave as Scott Alexander'/ essay.

2) Tyler is Employed by Bloomberg and Mr Bloomberg has gone off the deep end since the election. The number of rabid articles has been impressive. Tyler wants to keep his gig.

That's pretty much it. I understand. I have a good gig and I'm also terified to say anything.

He is moving left. At least in terms of tactics. I actually thought the piece was well written and had a good amount data in interpret differently but Tyler dismissed the post (in a borderline smug fashion) because of the authors background.

How are white men expected to engage in the national discussion of race when it's so widely acceptable to discredit their position based on their gender and skin color (or apparently, where they were born and raised)?

4. Scott Alexander to Larry Summers and Matt Yglesias: JUST STOP.

And Tyler, thanks so much for your thoughtful and devastating 16 word critique. No one knows about living under deeply racist conditions like you do, I am sure.

Mood affiliation.

TC may be the one mood affiliating... Earlier this week, he linked to SA's tumblr. Apparently SA considered his tumblr to be semi-anonymous/not-for-blog-consumption and posted a response sounding genuinely pissed. Put that on top of the election outcome: both TC's visceral dislike for DJT and his confidence that HRC would win

TC: unleash Tyrone and blow off some steam!

But it IS devastating. Why? Because it is entirely typical of the kind of appeal to "lived experience" that "privileged" people have not gone through.

Tyler is using the same method (one could call it a shtick) that some academics do in my field, History. That is, "hey you can't criticize this peasant. You are a privileged 21st century academic, not a French farm worker in the 17th century."

I suspect those same academics wouldn't have a problem criticizing 21st century white American peasants.

Well, precisely. Because: "Those awful smelly ignorant clinging bitter overprivileged peasants."

But even on those terms...

What little I know about Scott Alexander is that he is a classic dork. An outsider. A prematurely bald D&D playing polyamorist. Someone with maybe an interesting background and perspective. He was not Homecoming King, I don't think.

And he strikes me as an unusually thoughtful and honest and methodical thinker. Moreso than Tyler even, who ain't half bad himself.

You may be confusing him with Scott Adams. :-)

That was pre 'persuader master alpha male' Scott Adams; who now has a smoking hot 20 something year old model girlfriend, and is a role model for tens of thousands of young wayward men.

"an unusually thoughtful and honest and methodical thinker."

Not Scott Adams. That's the guy who bends over backwards to justify every dumb thing Trump has ever said, and called it being a "master persuader.", LOL. Definitely that quote is much more like Scott Alexander.


I'm pretty sure any American male under 5'9" knows a social state at least somewhat akin to racism in modern-day Mississippi.

What about those around 5'4"?

Also, I don't think the critique is actually taken as devastating by many people. Instead, I think it APPEARS to be devastating because it often effectively shuts down the debate (or turns the debate into a debate over whether you can understand whatever it is claimed you can't understand). It is not a rhetorical tool that I think is generally employed by the intellectually curious, so Tyler may want to reconsider his use of it.

Sorry, that's what I meant. Devastating not epistemologically or anything, but in terms of just shutting down the debate. What can Scott Alexander say in rebuttal? Nothing.

He can take solace in the knowledge that most thoughtful people know the game Tyler (and others) are playing, and think it is lame, if not tantamount to an admission of defeat. I mean, if Tyler had an actual counter-argument based on something besides "well you haven't experienced it, so you're wrong" he probably would have said it, right? So we can reasonably infer that Tyler has no such response, and declare Scott the victor.

Tyler generally doesn't comment on links, but had to this time to escape criticism

Scott Alexander, who writes on politics (among other things) as a hobby, is a vastly superior political writer than someone like Yglesias who does it professionally. Yglesias seems to have really gone off the deep edge because of the election, screeching about Trumphitler.

To be fair, Scott Alexander is the best blogger in the world

I didn't know him 'til this piece was linked to, but I will check him out more regularly.

There are oodles of ways in which a Trump administration can be bad for America, indeed the world, without this making Trump into Trumphitler. And calling out the progressives for overreacting hardly makes one uncritical of Trump.

Scott's more of an essayist than a blogger, in my mind.

I thought both the linked Alexander & Yglesias articles were rather good, although Yglesias has engaged in just the same sort* of fear-mongering Scott is decrying.
*A different kind of fear-mongering about the terrible job he'll do as president is entirely appropriate!

It's a little sad. The early MR blew me away. I was a steadfast "night watchman state" libertarian back then but I appreciated Tyler's ability to spread it around and used to chuckle at all the commentators who would flame Tyler and conclude "I thought this was a libertarian blog". Now that's he's achieved success and status, Tyler seems to be evolving towards an establishment liberal even though his heterodox beliefs were what made his name. But that's life. People have their seasons and Tyler had many good years, just like Sowell and Krugman had many good years before they evolved into knee-jerk partisans.

The sad part is that Tyler professes to care about a return to systemic racism, but holding non-progressive beliefs on poverty is enough to earn a lable of racist. "Out of wedlock", "work ethic", "respect for education" are now borderline dog whistles. You can be liberal or you can be racist. The only people with the energy to be racist are members of the alt-right. It's not a healthy dynamic and I suspect it is one that significantly increases the probability of a return to systemic racism.

Tyler an establishment liberal? In comparison to what? The Alt Right?

"evolving towards"

Still I doubt that

Its not devastating because it is not an argument at all. The notion that somebody like Tyler who works in one of the best jobs in the history of the world can appeal to a ridiculous privilege argument shows just how lazy the privilege arguers have become. People who argue in good faith actually have to provide reasons, data, and arguments. Privilege arguments are just lazy appeals to authority.

Deep racism never announces itself like Scott Alexander supposes it would. I don't care how few people are actual members of the KKK -- how many are effectively in the KKK? I don't suppose many MR readers have had first hand experience of racism or genocide in other countries because if they had it would be obvious that it's never announced in the papers either. Command and control is just a wink and a nod; the foot soldiers know what to do. Oh if only Trump knew of the injustices, he would punish the perpetrators!

According to Larry Summers’ “perspective,” Trump’s closing ad was anti-semitic. Interesting that another WaPo writer and your GMU colleague, Law Professor David Bernstein, couldn’t see any evidence of anti-semitism.

Look at Trump's family. He's knee deep in (((merchants))).

Why even argue with facts?

When the Mexican guy who owns the New York Times finds that his money spend just ended up creating a wall between Mexico and the US, the New York Times will cease to exist.

NYT is a publicly traded company and Carlos Slim appears to hold about 1/8 of it through a private investment vehicle. The general investing public through firms such as Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street own a larger share.

I think it sort of goes over some people's head what difference it means to compare a widely traded publicly traded media company with one that is largely controlled by a single owner, family, or small network of owners.

It's only the first or second or third most widely respected daily news outlet on the planet but never mind that ...

Incidentally, (((merchants))) also run the NYT. Control both sides goy.

@Chuck, what nonsense. If the past year hasn't proven too you that Trump's not "controlled" by ((())) nothing will. Association with Jews doesn't prove one is controlled by them.

"If the past year hasn’t proven too you that Trump’s not “controlled” by ((())) nothing will."


Perhaps you're right. Donny's a deal-maker and he may have made the deal of the century.

With @Chuck, I smell JIDF. F*** off.

With @Chuck, I smell JIDF. F*** off.

Good goy.

You spelled {[lizardoid aliens]} wrong.

We all know Trump helps Queen Elizabeth II control the world heroin trade for his inhuman masters from space.

Connect the dots!

(((Merchants))) are your greatest ally.


She's actually Lizzy the 1st returned to earth. She IS a lizard alien (hence the name) in disguise. She just faked her death and went back to space for a few centuries.


How many of you folks have actually seen Trump's closing ad? You can find it over at Watch it. It is not even remotely anti-Semitic. Anti-establishment? You bet. Anti-elitist? You bet. Anti-Semitic is just the trite nonsense the elite is using to decry a message that really does attack them.

In truth, it is a wonderful ad. Apparently it was only played (on TV) in swing states. Pity all of the American didn't have a chance to see it before election day. I was not an enthusiastic Trump supporter (more of an enthusiastic Hillary opponent). However, watching the Trump ad was a revelation.

I can't predict the course of the next four years. However, if Trump actually implements the policies implied by his ad, the Democrats won't have a chance for years to come.

Ads are created by professional political operatives that put words in canadate's mouth designed to please voters. When watching it I could see Bernie saying the same words. What Trump really thinks is in is early morning tweets when his staff is sound asleep.

Thanks for the insight, Joan. We'd never have known. But to speak to Peter's point: I remember being vaguely on the left as a History grad student years ago when Soros was hated for currency speculation. Was it anti-Semitic for progressives to criticize him then? I think not.


The issue is the ad. Let me quote

"According to Larry Summers’ “perspective,” Trump’s closing ad was anti-semitic"

Any number of folks who watched the ad and reached very different conclusions. Presumably Donald Trump has some thoughts about his Jewish daughter and Orthodox Jewish son-in-law late at night.

It doesn't SAY "Jews", but several of the people whose faces appear in the ad as representatives of the institutions/organizations in the add are Jewish.

Do you think that's a coincidence?

Nathan, you've spelled it out for us enough times:

For you, nothing that involves Jews is ever a coincidence.

Clearly I hit a nerve.

I've mentioned it twice and you're already harassing me for saying it too much.

(P.S. - I'm the guy the right wingers like to shit on for taking both sides of the Israel-Palestine situation, most especially for pointing out the more outrageously fraudulent propaganda purportedly disseminated by Zionists.)

Manners Nathan, in SJW-speak it's calling out, not harassing.

This isn't about your periodic anti-Israel rants.

I'm referring to your mewling about how those mean, clannish, cheap folks take advantage of you.

Black I'm wrong, white I'm wrong, and there is no grey.

Nice to meet you.

"Do you think that’s a coincidence?"

No, because there are very few Jews in positions of power, he had to look very hard before he found them!


With the exception of Soros, essentially no one knows that any of the people in the ad are Jewish. I follow politics pretty carefully, and I didn't have the slightest idea that Yellen and/or Blankfein were Jewish. Of course, Trump's daughter and son-in-law are Jewish. However, they are not in the ad.

The ad is a rather direct attack on the "Party of Davos". The "Party of Davos" is rather thin-skinned and is all to willing to use defamation and slander (Anti-Semitic) to have its way. Of course, when you have a track record as bad as the current elite, name-calling is going to come in handy quite a bit.

Yeah, I don't know what to tihnk of this.

It's 100% consistent with the ACTUALLY anti-semitic stuff you'd find among lots of white nationalist bordering on Nazi-like circles.

But at the same time, Jews are prone to crying wolf at any possible situation and tend to go on a major offensive against any public figure who does not bend to the "correct" victim or power narrative of the day. Certainly I do not speak for any Jews, nor do I suggest they are all like this, but the existence of both situations makes it difficult to read which of the two is more relevant.

I do think that it should be OK to openly observe that Jewish individuals and networks are highly over-represented in media and finance. From there we can debate if it's a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing. But if it is not allowed to observe this except with a big smile about how lovely it is to be the case, then that is a problem.

A relevant outcome of this, for example, is that there is more freedom to disagree on questions of Israel among Jews in Israel itself than among the general population of the USA many thousands of miles away.

Okay, but the ad did not make any such observation. The vast majority of people in it are not Jewish.


Is their real anti-Semitic stuff out there? Sure there is. Lots actually, and probably more than a few years ago. I saw an interview with Alan Dershowitz online a few days ago. He stated that the volume of right-wing anti-Semitic material had risen dramatically in recent years but was still below the volume of left-wing anti-Semitic material,

Are some Jews thin-skinned about this? Imagining antisemitism where it doesn't exist? Well... At least one major case comes to mind. Larry Summers has been complaining about Trump's closing add as anti-Semetic. Plenty of other Jews have strenuously disagreed. Is Summers being thin-skinned or is he really upset by Trump's attacks on bankers/Wall Street/neoliberalism (and using alleged/nonexistent antisemitism as a convenient club)? My guess is that the latter.

Nah, it would have been dog-whistling about globalist Jewish backscratching if instead of a brief picture of Fed Chair Janet Yellen, it used a picture of new Fed Deputy Chair Stanley Fischer, former head of the Bank of Israel for Sharon and Netanyahu.

"major news outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, NBC News, and others"

One of these things is not like the others.

NBC is a bit of an outlier, yes.

One commonality that I observe among those outlets is that they do not tend to promote hate or division in society.

This might be one of the reasons for their relatively large readership.

Huffington Post? Really?

Scott Alexander is right, but he's not actually arguing that we don't live in a racist society. He's arguing that the media is made up of assclowns who can't even get basic facts right, much less interpret anything with intelligence, and that these failures have completely destroyed trust in the media among normal people. He may not realize that the media totally believes its own bullshit at this point, and couldn't do anything differently even if they tried.

In other news, it's amazing to me that fake facebook news stories is even a matter of interest, much less a scapegoat for Clinton's loss. Is there evidence that this had any effect on the election?

I think it finally sunk in that someone under FBI investigation is not a really good presidential candidate. But, Democrats are never wrong, and will double down on their silliness. So the problem is obviously Facebook.

I thought the election campaign was entertaining. Better than NFL Football if the numbers tell us anything. But the after election is just delicious.

Trump was under investigation too. And, he still has several dates in court coming up.

Was he? He faces some civil suits but does he face investigations?

Russian ties were investigated. Also, rape allegations, but they kept on getting closed down after the accusers got inundated with death threats. Which doesn't exactly scream innocence, but anyways ...

The person claiming 'death threats'' is Gloria Allred's daughter. There's no corroboration and only an idiot would take her claim at face value. Why not prove the plaintiff isn't a fictional construct dreamed up by her lawyers?

I think Steve Bannon being cozy with the alt right and the alt right being racist are pretty clear facts. What then is the media missing on this story?

Adulation - the alt right expects adulation for their brave struggle against insidious political correctness.


But that's not "literally a Nazi", which is the slur being spread.

And that is exactly the point alexander is making.

If "sort of cozy with X because edited a website they sort of liked and X is sort of Y" means "literally a hardcore Y", what the hell do we have left to call an actual Y if one shows up?

Call Bannon unwholesome and call his associates troublesome, by all means - I might even agree*.

Call him a literal white supremacist and I demand primary evidence for the charge, which sadly the few mass-media links I've seen from proponents of the label have been entirely lacking.

(* disclosure: Not a Trump voter or supporter, had never heard of Bannon before this pseudo-contremps, and refuse to knowingly click a Breitbart link, as partisan clickbait.)

Who precisely is saying Steve Bannon is literally a nazi?

With names please.

He has indeed been charge directly with anti semitism but you know as well as I do Breitbart is Stormfont-lite

"you know as well as I do Breitbart is Stormfont-lite"

You frequent both of these places? I don't and have no idea if that is true or not.

You don't have to visit frequently to get the message. The alt-right isn't big on subtlety.

Read Scott's post. He links to numerous articles saying Trump is openly racist/white-supremacist etc.

Paul Ryan admitted he was openly racist. We are talking about Bannon being "a literal nazi"

So now we can "admit" that OTHER people are openly racist?

So you infrequently visit both Stormfront and Breitbart?

Did you even bother to read the piece? Go to the part that says: Open open open openly and openly, etc.

Define "being cosy with". Define "alt right". We know what "racist" means, though it is not clear that you do, so feel free to define it as well. When you've done that, if there is still a "story" that remains, we'll tell you what's wrong with it.

"Alt right" is what people whose political views are dominated by racism call themselves, no? There's basically little or no connection to classical right wing positions, such as relating to taxation, the role of government in production, and a variety of other things.

Is there anything "right wing" about the "alt right"?


"There’s basically little or no connection to classical right wing positions, such as relating to taxation, the role of government in production, and a variety of other things. "

What you meant to say is "classical liberal positions." The cuckservatives try to deny it, but the fact is that "racism"(i.e., not wanting America to be North Brazil) has always been common on the American Right.

Yes, traditional conservative positions are the same as those also traditionally referred to as "liberal", both of which are on the right wing of the political and economic spectrum.

I gather they basically got most of what they wanted in those spheres (some quibbling about specific tax rates), and now what is "liberty"-focused has progressed towards more marginal groups who previously were unable to attract attention to whatever disproportionately difficult situation resulted in their relatively lower economic and social freedom.

I like my openly racist white-nationalists, to have, JUST ONCE, said something like "We need to preserve our country for the white race."

Otherwise, at the very least, they aren't open.

Even George Wallace didn't dare say that. I think by open we mean that no honest person can deny what they are. Not that they themselves admit it.

That's a perversion of the term "open". If you say you are straight, you're not openly gay.

Okay George Wallace was a closet racist. In a glass closet.

Is your point that words mean whatever you want them to mean, no more and no less?

"white" is not a race

??? Why are they always asking me to check it on government forms then?

Does it say "race" on it? If you look more closely, it's probably more about "identity" than "race".

Nathan, have you ever looked, closely or farly, at US racial classification questions?
Do you pretend knowledge just to post something?

I'm not American.

I'm asking a specific person about their specific experience.

But if you have useful information on the question rather than negative innuendo, my ears certainly are not closed.

No innuendo here. The US govt requires, under threat of fines, the filling out of forms in which people are classified by race. For some reason you post snotty responses stating otherwise when you know nothing about the subject.

But what's the word on the form?

For example, is the question something like "do you identify with heritage which is primarily ______________", followed by a list of 100 options including free form answers, or is the question something like "is your race black/white/hispanic/asian/other"?

I'll have to check the next time I fill out a form like that, but there definitely are not 100 answers, there's generally about 5. The clear implication is they are asking for your race but I can't tell you the exact wording.

"Race" features prominently among the categories. Why is this so hard for you? The US gov't is not squeamish about these practices. Easily found example, many more out there:

Note the lumping and splitting; all of Europe and North Africa in one box(tens of million), the rest of Africa in one box (millions), separate boxes for subsets of Pacific Islanders (single digit thousands)

Clearly, if the cross on the lawn was merely smouldering, we should give those fine gentlemen in white the benefit of the doubt.

Any examples of these basic facts which they do not get right?

The news media have made a lot of money this election. They are businesses that sell people's attention to advertisers.. Stories (and I mean stories) derived from selected facts are the entertainment they use to attract attention. They have got things more right than in any previous election.

Tyler, thank you for continuing to post thoughtful perspectives and for not pandering to those commenters who are upset that you aren't vocally supporting Trump, the alt right, or racism.

Could you highlight the thought in these "thoughtful perspectives"? Its not obvious.

I personally think Trump is a creep and wouldn't leave my daughter alone in a room with him.

But Tyler's post was not particularly thoughtful. It was standard issue "standpoint epistemology", claiming that unless you have experienced racism (or x), you have no business claiming to know about it.

Tyler is saying that Scott Alexander is wrong by virtue of being naive. And naive by virtue of being privileged enough to NOT having suffered from racism because, duh, he's white and professional (upper middle echelon or whatever you want to fill in).

If there is one thing left and right can unite on, surely it is that Trump should be kept away from our daughters.

I don't know man, sounds a little sexist and patriarchal. Shouldn't we let our daughters make their own decisions? I don't really know, I only have sons, and in my experience no one wants to be left alone in a room with them, so the issue hasn't come up.

It's not us he's pandering to.....

Wow! Dismissing Scott Alexander's piece because he might not have "lived under deeply racist conditions". I understand that circumstances might make one very "sensitive" or maybe "nervous" about university policy issues.

I read that piece and thought, "I'm not sure how any liberal could actually disagree with this". I didn't take into account the devestating rebuttal, "Nuh-uh."

Longer #4:

You forget that the privilege wars we have found ourselves thrust into mean that there is an answer to any logical argument to which you have no rational response:

- "You only think that because you are privileged."

Tyler is a world-famous academic, Scott is still only starting his medical career, ditto for me, I'm only starting my own business (at 26). I'm also a recent migrant with a hispanic sounding name, which gives me extra points.

Can I now say that Tyler's take is invalid because he is privileged? He makes it easy for me to posit this because he made no actual argument against Scott.

So my claim should invalidate Tyler's claim of privilege, because Tyler has more privilege than me.

He is only saying that because he is privileged and doesn't want his privilege ruined by students picketing his office for wrong-think.

This is all well and good until a handicapped, transwoman, lesbian midget latinax (of color) comes along and says the final word on the subject.

1. Goes to Bloomberg's technology page, perhaps you meant to link to this piece:

If you haven't caught on yet, there is a very nasty culture war going on, and the proper thinking people have tagged it all as racism/racism/racism/whitesupremacy/etc.

The only victors in these wars have been those willing to do everything the hard left does in return twice as hard. That is the world Bannon is familiar with.

The Left hates that because they lose.

So watch this, it will happen again and again because it works.

Bannon, Bannon Bannon RACIST Bannon Obamacare Repealed WHAT! How did that happen, mope, riot. A week passes. Bannon Bannon Bannon Racist, Supreme court justice appointed WHAT! Mope, riot. Rinse repeat.

Trump will win even more states in four years, and half the media will either see their crews chased out of town with sticks or bankruptcy.

It is working as designed. And the Left will fall for it again and again.

Turn on your TV and watch any comedy or drama. Liberals have won. Diversity is winning.

As far as economics. 40 years of conservatives increasingly controlling the way economics is described and debated has failed to erase TANSTAAFL.

Reality is a bitch.

Who will you blame in 3 years if the economy is not Great! ?

I tallied up 6 tax cuts to create jobs and spur growth between 2001 and 2008. I know that's what they were for because that was the title of each of the bills.


The great Reagan tax reform of 1987 led to fantastic growth in 1994 to 2000, but not from 1988 to 1993 when two massive tax hikes were passed (1990, 1993).

You seem to be unaware of Reagan's tax cut of 1981 that led to explosive growth in the 80's. There were also cuts under Coolidge and JFK that led to great growth in the 20's and 60's. History is very clear that higher tax rates thwart growth.

A tax hike in 1993?


Was this the August 10, 1993 tax hike?

Who was president then?

(Hint: Not RR or GHWB.)

Ahh, the peace dividend, gotta love it!

Yeah, but Bannon is actually racist, right? Should people not call a spade a spade? If he doesn't like being called racist, he could speak and act in ways that would make people defend him from absurd charges. But the spade is a spade.

Sky sky sky (blue) actually is blue. Sky blue. As for the environmental terrorists who knit sweaters in church basements to raise funds to buy materials for posters which peacefully terrorize armed police and other security personnel, now THAT is a problem.

Also, you're reading a LOT out of a very marginal election victory in a context where only an extremely small share of votes are truly up for grabs in any given election.

Do you have actual reasons for thinking Bannon is racist or is this just a replay of the Trump issue writ small?

On the left shoulder, someone saying there is no racism, on the right shoulder, some peddling racism, both of which perhaps having their strings pulled by the same puppetmaster.

Anyways, if Bannon is not racist, or anyways would like to project better relations with different groups, he is not lacking in media to make his position known.

Well Trump certainly made efforts but it didn't seem to get him anywhere. Their advice to him might be to keep his head down

I remember in 1984 they called the war ministry the "Ministry of Peace." Maybe that's where these "peaceful protestors" are getting the idea.

If you're talking about violent protestors, then those are not the ones I'm talking about.

But I'm feeling pretty distracted and double Orwelled right about now.

The sky is blue unless they feelz it's green. Which is where we are at.

I think it is naive, and suspect he has never really lived under deeply racist conditions.

Seems like a non-sequitur. Have you, TC?

"Fake news"

Does the analysis also include in this group the Sabrina Rubin Erdely article published by Rolling Stone about a rape at UVA?

Well that story was Fake but accurate. So it doesn't count as Fake of course.

4. I didn't live under deeply racist conditions. But I lived under a regime in which the ruling elites could break the law without any legal consequences. Should my opinion of Clinton's legal, um, difficulties count more than Tyler's?

That was a trick question. Of course not. Tyler has also been living under a regime in which the ruling elites could break the law without any legal consequences.

Usually, I prefer to consider only the legal difficulties of one candidate, but completely ignore the legal difficulties of the other.

I was called racist for saying that the structure of centralized health care in a Washington bureaucrat was a bad idea in Obamacare.

Trump doesn't dive under the couch in fear when the New York Times calls him racist. So they have to yell louder.

No one is listening any more. The word is meaningless, and it is the fault of the Left. It was used as a bludgeon to shut down discussion of policy, and it doesn't work anymore.

A question. If the reality of 3000 or so blacks murdered in Chicago can't be discussed because of accusations of racism, should those who shout racism be held accountable for their deaths? And if you don't think that this is what people are thinking with the result that the Democrats hold all the Librarian positions in the country but not much else, you should reconsider.

Been saying this for years, when everyone is racist, no one is racist. The left ran into someone who had zero problems rolling in the mud with them. Now, they're in deep doo doo.

About what decade did racism stop being the default position in America?

"Everyone's a racist" isn't a shocking exaggeration. It accurately describes most of US history.

Suppose you are walking down the street one day, and I've put up a soapbox and am holding forth on my religious ideas. Seeing you walk by, I call out "There goes a sinner--sins like murder, theft, whoremongering and adultery are destroying this country, and there goes the worst kind of evil sinner."

And then suppose you decide to engage my crackpot evangelist self, and say "Wait a minute, I've never murdered anyone, stolen anything, hired a prostitute, or slept off on my wife. What the hell are you talking about?"

And I respond: "Well, you know, all are sinners in that all have fallen short of the glory of god."

You're not going to walk away from that conversation with a high opinion of me.

This is more-or-less what happens in a huge number of online discussions of racism, where the opening bid is "racist like the KKK" and the fallback position is "well, we're all a little racist, really, why are you so sensitive?"

Hey, that was an excellent parable.

This is a great metaphor. Thanks.

Your point being?

Are you claiming African-Americans are racist?

Who knew "The Incredibles" was prescient?

When everyone is special......

Sounds pretty absurd.

What did these people actually say to you? Are you sure you're not being trolled by racists who are trying to make other people look like idiots?

Or does this related to the fact that Obamacare was basically what the Republicans used to suggest, until some black Democrat suggested it, at which point in time nothing at all like it was acceptable any more?

Wasn't a similar system proposed by one thinktank a long time ago? And Romney did something similar in Mass with mostly Dem support. I don't think that really qualifies it as a conservative darling.

@Tyler "And everyone else is linking to this Scott Alexander post on crying wolf and racism, but I think it is naive, and suspect he has never really lived under deeply racist conditions". But how on earth the fact that he lived or not under "deeply racist conditions" has any relevance to the plain and clear logic of Alexander's argumentation. Refute his arguments if you can and wish, Tyler, but it is unworthy of you to use such *ad hominem* attack.

Alexander essentially argues that means disprove datums. If racism falls from 80% to 20%, then on average no one is a racist.

Not exactly true.

But then the really biting irony here is that we saw in these very pages these responses to the Trump victory:

Sometimes there aren't enough face palms to adequately respond to your posts, anon. Please do try to elevate your game, coherence-wise.

Alexander wrote a long diffuse piece that suffers from being wrong in small degrees all the way through. It is a fisking. That is my take away of the main logic though, that if there are fewer racists there are no racists.

A common game. Are you playing it now?

That's not his thesis. His thesis is:

> I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter).

I tripped over the wrong button. I was trying to say that in these pages we saw long threads on the Trump victory and HBD.

The pro tip would probably not to be a racist the same place you want to deny that there are racists.

"I'm White, I'm not a liberal, and convinced the liberal I'm not racist."

Said no one ever.

They say the right wing doesn't fact check anymore. That is their strength and their weakness.

Fact check: are there racists? yes.

After that we have to look at this whole psychology of "it's not fair when you call anyone on the right a racist."

Fact check: are there racists on the right? yes.

So what's the deal? Do you seek to protect them? Or do you want to pretend they are not there to "strengthen" your position? The second choice is funny. Yes the pretense that there are no racists is appealing to the right, but it obviously it does drive a wedge with others not so extreme.

We can see you lying.

No, the problem is when you repeatedly call someone an openly white supremacist KKK-supporting neo-nazi when they are waving around rainbow flags and proclaiming their love for Hispanics while eating taco bowls on cinco de mayo. It's dangerous and counter-productive.

Fact check: does the universe have a liberal moral bias? YES, RACISTS.

It's not clear that you understand proper usage of "ad hominem".

Did I miss something in 2012? Who actually called Romney a racist?

Mark Kleiman did. He actually claimed Romney was an Anglo-Saxon supremacist, who considered Italian Americans racial inferiors:

Follow up. Who the devil is Mark Kleiman?

I'd thought Mark Kleiman was the rare serious voice on the portside. Better think again.

I still think everyone should read his book "When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment". He is fairly open about being a partisan Democrat (in his own words) though.

"I’d thought Mark Kleiman was the rare serious voice on the port side…"

I thought so too. Sometimes I wonder if he overdoes on the partisan hyperbole to make up for the fact that his views on drug policy are kinda fuddy fuddy centrist and come off a wee conservative. (They're also accurate, and well-informed I should add.)

During the 2012 campaign, Joe Biden went in front of a mostly black audience and stated that the GOP would put "y'all back in chains."

So.. no one?

Are you too lazy to Google?

I'm to smart to think that "google it" bodes well for you ever saying anything useful.

When given the examples you asked for, you dismiss or ignore them. Speaks volumes of what you're really trying to achieve.

I actually asked a pretty straightforward question and as of yet no one has provided an answer. Neither Kleiman or Biden called Romney a racist.

Fact check: did anyone? YES.

Heh. Your move, bigot.

" Neither Kleiman or Biden called Romney a racist."

Give it a rest.

Biden said Romney wanted to re-establish slavery. Who but racist would want to do that?

And how can any sentient human not think Kleiman was calling Romney a racist?

"Biden said Romney wanted to re-establish slavery"
No he did not. If you want to argue then quote those words.
"And how can any sentient human not think Kleiman was calling Romney a racist?"

because that is not what he said.

"Taking everything into account including Romney’s well-documented hostility toward undocumented Mexicans in the United States a troubling case could be made that Romney indeed is a racist, at least of the country-club variety, a sad turn for a nation that only four years ago elected its first African-American president."

Romney Accused of Racism After Saying NAACP Wants ‘Free Stuff’

Nine most racist moments of the 2012 election
The "47 percent" is only the tip of the iceberg -- and the election is still weeks away

Romney Plays The Race Card
Was Romney actually speaking to the NAACP, or using them to help himself?

I could go on. LOTS of people called Romney racist. They called McCain racist. They called Bush racist. They called Bob Dole racist.

Many otherwise persuadable voters just don't take it seriously anymore.

Now now, Alesis might need a safe space.

If you really wanted an answer to that question, you would lift a finger. I have no doubt you know how to use google to get answers that you are really interested in.

Robert Parry, Tom Edsall, Daily Kos, Lawrence O' Donnell, and Ian Hanry-Lopez (with assist to Bill Moyers) are what I got from five minutes. You're welcome.

That's the second "google it" I've gotten and it remain entirely unconvincing. Maybe some actual evidence?

You asked for names. I gave you names. Why on earth you think you can stroll in here with gaping maw demanding to be fed is beyond me. Not how it works.

No I just wanted to demonstrate the absurd nature of Alexanader's premise and you've been very helpful.

Everything you accused others of doing to Trump you JUST did to everyone you named.

Good work. If you are typical of the left, we should plan on eight years of Trump.

" If you are typical of the left, we should plan on eight years of Trump."

Exactly right. What Alesis does not realize is that he/she and those like-minded have done more to give us Trump than all the racists in America. Sometimes you get Trumped when you overplay your hand. Thanks a lot, Alesis. You and your bullshit hand have just given us Donald J. Trump, Jr.

It's quite remarkable. These people have learned absolutely nothing.

If this keeps up I'll be looking to get into the betting markets (again) for another Trump win.

Vivian and Brian - WTF? Someone asks a question and observes that the answer was not convincing. It is not your job to convince them, but if they remain unconvinced, maybe you could try persuasion instead of telling them that whatever they don't like, they will get more of, if they do not stop asking such questions.

"If you dare to not be satisfied with my answers to questions, it's ALL YOUR FAULT that whatever you don't want to happen, will in fact come to pass."

Or what?

A name like 'Troll Me' requires a higher level of effort.

Nah, he's not a racist. He's a non-racist making racist attacks (per the former DNC Chair):

So in answer to the question as asked we are still at "no one"?

Right. She was just dog whistling.

You have been given five names but that wasn't good enough for you. It's time to admit that nothing would ever be good enough for you.

Let's take a trip down memory lane. Dateline: January 20, 2001

Protesters at the GWII Presidential Inauguration, "taking off their clothes in the street", signs of "Bush = racism".

Same shi* different year for our class of left-leaning kidults.

"I think it is naive, and suspect he has never really lived under deeply racist conditions"

Naive how, specifically? How would Alexander rebut such an 'argument'? And of course Alexander has never really lived under deeply racist conditions. Nor has Tyler or any of the rest of us. But so what? How does that impact Alexander's analysis of whether or not Trump's campaign ran on racist themes? Or whether racist attitudes among white Americans are A) common, or B) increasing?

Tyler_Cowen has too much status to need to substantiate that remark.

Naive in Scott's method of examining Trumps alleged racism - i.e. looking at each charge individually and actively refusing to consider the big picture (section 16).

Tellingly, he also omitted any discussion of the least disputable example, the Judge Curiel situation.

This combination (1. "making up various non-racist explanations for every racist-sounding thing Trump says", 2. ignoring context, and 3. ignoring the not-just-racist-sounding-but-textbook-racist comment about Curiel) can be plausibly described as naive, I think.

I'd go with "denial" myself.

Judge Curiel. Or Ted Cruz, who was lambasted for being Canadian.

There's a theme in all this, and it's not racism. It's nationalism.

I read his piece. Alexander isn't being naive he's willfully ignoring the truth. He even admits as much by linking to exit polls that contradict his basic thesis. To say that Trump did not campaign on unencumbered white identity politics is to say you did not pay any attention to the campaign.

The question is not whether he appealed to racism. The question is whether you think this is a bad thing.

Didn't Trump do slightly worse among whites than Romney, and slightly better among non-whites? Did Romney campaign on unencumbered white identity politics?

It seems like the difference was mostly that black (and possibly latino) people were less enthused about coming out to vote for an old white woman than they had been for a younger black man. Any chance race was a factor in that relative lack of enthusiasm?

Trump benefited from increased white turnout and according to most exit polls did substantially worse among Latinos and about the same among African Americans.

"and according to most exit polls did substantially worse among Latinos"

Within the margin of error, but probably slightly better.

Trump Did Better With Blacks, Hispanics Than Romney in '12: Exit Polls

That is the main thing I am seeing when I search on the topic. Your statement that "according to most exit polls [Trump] did substantially worse among Latinos" does not seem to be based in reality.

Thankfully the authors there have no agenda.

You have now cited one exit poll supporting your claim. Can you please provide the basis for your statement that "most exit polls" support this view?


They only got that result by including "pre election surveys" which we know for a fact got the final vote wrong.

I assume this is Latino Decisions. I would give them more credibility if they were a neutral source, but they're not.

How do they think Trump did better in New Mexico (including most of the state's >50% Hispanic counties) and Nevada (including every single county) than Romney if he only got half as many Hispanic voters and there was record Hispanic turnout? How do they think Trump did better nationwide than Romney if he also didn't do any better among black voters, and had college educated whites swing strongly against him?

I could believe that monolithic Hispanic neighborhoods in big cities swung towards Clinton. But most Hispanics don't live in those places.

We just had an election that was famous for inaccurate pre-election polling. Let's treat the exit polls with a little skepticism.

The only one who is willfully ignoring anything is you. You know Alexander voted for Clinton and condemned Trump, right? You're trying to pull a Trump and go "oh all the stats he cited are lies, actually the stats say the opposite" without any evidence.

That the name "Judge Curiel" does not appear in that piece says as much as anything about willful ignorance.

He doesn't mention him by name, but it is in there

Scott Adams was wrong, some are too far hypnotized...

You are projecting a broken paradigm all over this thread and adding nothing to it. Maybe take a break.

I remember back in the old days, right after I learned about TC by way of (as I recall) his guest blogging at the volokh conspiracy. maybe this is nostalgia, but I remember in those days often finding the comments to be a kind of best-of-breed ( to speak...) -- thoughtful people chiming in with cites, careful arguments expressed in a well-chosen paragraph or two, &c.

the old days were long ago indeed.

Back in the day when citizens came to discuss and learn from each other, instead of all decent outlets being targeted by those who would rather vomit on everything they do not like than listen to those they do not understand.

The thing about the Eternal September is that it always gets worse. No how bad it seems, it is still going to be worse next year.

"I don’t hate blacks. The day I said ‘segregation forever,’ I never said a thing that would upset a black person unless it was segregation. I never made fun of ‘em about inequality and all that kind of stuff. But my vehemence was against the federal government folks. I didn’t make people get mad against black people. I made ‘em get mad against the courts."

George Wallace

No one is ever a bigot. They all have a great realtionship with "the blacks"

He actually did win the black vote when he ran as a democrat.

I think it is naive, and suspect he has never really lived under deeply racist conditions.

On the other hand many racists hide it from blacks but whites are privy to it and so do have some information.

I think many, maybe most blue collar whites are at least a little bit racist, but that college educated whites tend to give backs extra slack. Remember the debate about "the soft bigotry of low expectations", that was mostly about hurting blacks be giving too much slack.

I think foisting racism on the working class was the slickest trick the rich ever pulled. Trump is living proof the rich are no less racist.

Truly bizarre. You are digging yourself deeper and deeper

The theory is that some folks go laughing to the bank while the peons run around fighting each other over crumbs, and that stirring up racial resentment distracts the working class from organizing.

@Troll, there's another theory, that a certain cohesive racial group stirs up class resentment to distract the out-group from organizing against it.

Never heard of that theory. Can you elaborate a bit more, even if it's straight out of your ass?

Didn't people start out super-racist (dawn of time until ~100 years ago) and gradually get less and less racist over time until overt racism is now pretty rare? Is that consistent with the idea that rich people brainwashed poor people into being racist to distract them?

Parody account.

False-flag troll occasionally slipping into parody.

The Urban Institute undertook a study ca. 1990 which indicated that, all else being equal, race was a modest impediment to being hired for low skill wage jobs and a modest benefit for salaried positions. Racial patronage schemes have for decades been features of the legal profession, academe, and public employment. In the last 15 years, the diversity shtick has infected corporate HR as well.

I don't think racial antagonisms are much of a problem. A more consequential problem is the disposition (taken for granted) that people who live six miles away from you in city slums are to be regarded as if they lived on the dark side of the moon. The core city mayor where I grew up tried for a dozen years to interest the county government in service consolidations, some of which make perfect sense from a technical standpoint. No dice. The county executive's raison d'etre was that property taxes would never go up by so much as a penny, and any accounting chicanery she might engage in to keep that from happening (including attempting to seize school district revenue) was all good. So, any change in the division of labor between county and municipal government was rejected a priori. It doesn't help that the megaphone in the black population is generally in the hands of hucksters who seem to think of public agencies as places to stuff their clientele full stop, who are hostile to law enforcement, and who do not care about levels of public order.

The Urban Institute undertook a study ca. 1990 which indicated that, all else being equal, race was a modest impediment to being hired for low skill wage jobs and a modest benefit for salaried positions. Racial patronage schemes have for decades been features of the legal profession, academe, and public employment. In the last 15 years, the diversity shtick has infected corporate HR as well.

I think that is about right.

About cities Our city boarders make no sense the way that they are today. It would be good to have an objective way to draw city boarders but we don't and I have no idea how to get there.

Perhaps we should look to charity like this:

"low expectations"

Outside of prejudiced circles, I don't think such people have low expectations of blacks, and certainly do not give them slack.

Although, some may give them a chance despite lower qualifications or grades and occasionally have to have some patience while the lower-cost labour gets up to speed.

#4 "And everyone else is linking to this Scott Alexander post on crying wolf and racism, but I think it is naive, and suspect he has never really lived under deeply racist conditions."

Thanks, I wasn't sure when to call your jumping-the-shark.

I liked Scott's piece and was much needed but I think he was being too optimistic.

1) the alt-right may not have a lot of voter influence but it can easily intellectual and cultural influence, especially in a social media context. Campus identity politics isn't a huge voter base but it very easily has an effect. You can't say one is a bad influence and then say something similar can't have the same influence.

2) Minorities have a rational reason to inflate threats to their personhood and lives, just like anyone else would in a risky situation. This isn't just to play safe on the 'boiling frog in a pot' problem but the fact that Trump's rhetoric and associations didn't cost him would mean that voters who may not hate you, but may not care about you. Likewise, ethnic outbidding tends to end badly for minorities.

3) People from Trump's camp including Trump have illustrated a willingness to deport 2-3 million undocumented migrants (he won't find 2-3M of them with criminal records so what happens next?) and a muslim registry. Bannon is a pretty obvious problem still.

That credulous list of "nice things Donald Trump said about the blacks" went beyond optimistic straight into "useful idiot" territory.

You're nothing but a sexist homophobe, Alesis. Heh, your move, bigot.

Is deporting illegal immigrants who committed crimes in the U.S. really racist?

The problem is what happens when we get far-right police departments or sheriffs (you have heard of Arpaio, right? there will be more like him) who actively want to deport well-behaved immigrants and falsely arrest people for violent crimes. There are some moral quandaries waiting to leap out there, and I don't have very much faith in a Trump-led executive branch to navigate them very well.

Seems quite speculative. It's quite a leap from the seemingly common-sense stance that illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes should be deported, to the stance that we CAN'T deport illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes, or else racist policemen will just start framing all illegal immigrants for violent crimes.

I think a public policy promise to deport 2-3M individuals 'right away' (roughly 8% of Canada) is pretty heinous, even if it doesn't happen. If it happened in an African country, the international community would condemn that as "ethnic cleansing by explusion". Sure, many of you may not hold my moral and political priors.

HOWEVER, I think a basic understanding of public choice should make anyone worry about this, even if you don't share my humantarian concerns. If a gov't creates a populist promise to deport 2-3M people and they can't find 2-3M people who are criminals (let alone violent ones), why shouldn't we assume self-interested law and security enforcement under pressure wouldn't do things like that?

"I think a public policy promise to deport 2-3M individuals ‘right away’ (roughly 8% of Canada) is pretty heinous,"

Why is a comparison to the Canadian population at all relevant? Are they being deported from Canada?

Canada doesn't need to report people because they use a points based immigration system that while not explicitly racist means their immigration is almost entirely smart Asians and Indians while the rest are kept out in all but token numbers.

It was to illustrate the size of that proposal, as a Canadian.

Replying to 'asdf' below, since I can't seem to reply directly: yes, this is where things get weird. Canada has an immigration system, in policy and enforcement, more strict and severe than anything proposed by any US political candidate, Dem or Rep. What's more, this system's basic structure has the support of basically all the major political parties - they differ only on details.

I always found it remarkable to see, in the US media, people saying things like "I'm an undocumented immigrant, but I graduated valedictorian of my high school!" or some such thing. First of all, in Canada, if you can't prove citizenship, good luck getting into school, or work, or getting healthcare, or a driver's license, or a bank account, or welfare of any sort. Secondly, that you will often see people admitting, in the media, to being in the US illegally - with their face, name, and other identifying characteristics unobscured. You would *not* do such a thing in Canada, because you could just as easily find yourself getting bundled into a Border Services Agency van the next morning. The CBSA does not give a damn about anybody's feelings - if you can't prove that you have permission to be in the country, you'll be detained and deported as soon as possible. I personally know two people whose Canadian visas ran out and were told in no uncertain terms to get the hell out of the country, or they might not be allowed to even *visit* again.

So the US, which has had moderately strict laws on immigration, and enforced them weakly, is the Bad Guy, while Canada, which has had very strict laws on immigration and enforced them without apology, is the Nice Guy. I guess the "lesson" is not to let undocumented immigrants in, in the first place - that way nobody sees anything.

"First of all, in Canada, if you can’t prove citizenship, good luck getting into school, or work, or getting healthcare, or a driver’s license, or a bank account, or welfare of any sort."

Legal status and citizenship are two different things; Canada, just like almost every other country in the world, allows foreign nationals under some circumstances and with the correct visa to do all the things you mention except perhaps claim welfare. Most U.S. states will not allow someone who cannot prove legal status to obtain a driver's license or open a bank account. Is Canada more strict than the U.S. in terms of prosecuting employers and employees who violate the law with respect to work visas and permits? We would need some actual data on this.

Ricardo: you're right, I should have said "citizenship or legal residency".

Best estimates for total number of illegal immigrants in Canada is somewhere between 50 000 and 100 000. Let's say 75 000. That's only one in 450 people. Whereas in the US, it's more like one in 25 people. So equivalent strictness is hard to measure, since Canadian authorities would have to find those who have evaded all previous efforts to remove them. Certainly, however, enforcement has meant that the total number of illegal immigrants is kept to a very low level relative to that of the US. My main point is that people's common impressions of US immigration policy being unusually strict is quite mistaken. Anecdotally, you read stories like this:

Wherein a student, legally in the country, was pursued and deported for working off-campus for a few weeks in violation of the terms of her visa. It's not like the 60s anymore, where American draft evaders could basically overstay their visas indefinitely.

Ricardo - interesting question about different strictness of workplace and immigration policy enforcement.

But there are pretty obvious problems in interpreting data even if the data can be obtained for purposes of the research.

For example, at the small end you're going to have mostly people who just overstayed their visa or who are working illegally for some short period of time while under another visa, and since numbers are lower than the US it really doesn't make sense to be that strict about it because it wouldn't be worth it.

You'll also get some organized crime involved, but the scale, type and "optimal" level of response are all going to be different.

So ... interesting, but it'd be quite something if someone can manage to untangle something useful out of the comparison other than just to observe "yeah, different, and here's a couple reasons of maybe why"

Still, Canada seems to have a soft spot for shovel-ready refugees. The 'good schools' won't last, you know.

More like Arpaio? I doubt it -- especially given that old Sheriff Joe himself got the boot (and may be headed for prison). Maricopa County gave Trump the most votes of any county in the U.S. ... and also voted old Sheriff Joe out of office in favor of a Democrat.

Throwing $2M into a campaign for county sheriff can do that.

Of course not - and registering Muslims is as American as rounding up Japanese Americans, apparently. 'During an appearance on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News show, Carl Higbie said a registry proposal being discussed by Trump’s immigration advisers would be legal and would “hold constitutional muster.”

“We’ve done it with Iran back awhile ago. We did it during World War II with the Japanese,” said Higbie, a former Navy SEAL and a spokesman for the pro-Trump Great America PAC.

Kelly seemed taken aback by the idea.

“Come on, you’re not proposing we go back to the days of internment camps, I hope,” she said.

“I’m not proposing that at all,” Higbie told her. “But I’m just saying there is precedent for it.”'

Clearly Kelly is another one of those mamby-pamby liberals more concerned with some strange idea of how laws work in the U.S. than she is in keeping Americans safe from shari'a law - 'When Higbie invoked Japanese internment camps, Kelly pushed back, at one point cutting him off mid-sentence and raising her voice.

“You can’t be citing Japanese internment camps as precedent for anything the president-elect is going to do,” she told him.

Higbie responded: “Look, the president needs to protect America first, and if that means having people that are not protected under our Constitution have some sort of registry so we can understand — until we can identify the true threat and where it’s coming from, I support it.”

“You get the protections,” Kelly said, “once you come here.”

Obviously, since Kelly actually understands how the law works in the U.S., she will not be getting a job in Trump's administration.

Muslim registry is a terrible idea, although not "racist" per se

Agree with the first part. The second part is obviously not true.

Sorry Cliff, a few years ago, white leftists "appropriated" Islam and redefined it. Despite the beliefs of its adherents, it is no longer a global religion with a long history of welcoming all peoples. It is now, per Nathan, a race.

a ha ha. ur so smrt.

Islam is not a race.

Now here's your certificate for being super smrt.

(P.S.: "religionist" would mean pro-religion. So ... "racist" it is.)

Maybe try "prejudiced"? I mean come on, it makes zero sense to call Islam a race. Zero sense.

Neither Kelly nor yourself made any legal argument.

"Clearly Kelly is another one of those mamby-pamby liberals more concerned with some strange idea of how laws work in the U.S. than she is in keeping Americans safe from shari’a law."

Yeah, how can she be unconcerned about this serious issue? Lots of places in the U.S. are on the verge of enacting sharia law. NOT.

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? It's like keeping Americans safe from kangaroos.

2) That's a neat idea but who has that kind if discipline to leave a sealed box unopened? Even if I know what's in a box I open it immediately so I can wrap its contents in festive paper!!! I can't imagine someone who's such a perfect materialist/ascetic hybrid, who would buy presents and then just casually ignore them in their boxes. Or someone whose Christmas present volume is so unwieldy they need a personal in-home processing system. Other than Santa Claus, who would use this?

4) Was this supposed to be funny? 'Scott Alexander has never lived under deeply racist is perspective from Larry Summers.' As a layman and conservative I actually like Larry Summers a lot, but that article was hysterical nonsense--an over-reliance on hearsay and anecdotes, no data and no skepticism. We shouldn't discount that fact that a not-insignificant portion (I'd even hazard to say the great majority) of reported incidences of post-election bigotry and hate crimes are either made-up or hoaxes. I sincerely doubt Larry Summer's children go to schools swarming with latent racists who now feel comfortable spray-painting swastikas all over creation or sending pictures of lynchings to black students because Donald Trump is president-elect. These sound like hoaxes, and they wouldn't be the first. Similarly Twitter has positively exploded with self-reported experiences of hate and bias, and most of them read like bad fiction. If Summers can't convince himself that these new minority fears may be irrational, as he admits, how can anyone else?

Just because a reported hate crime does not result in prosecution does not make it a hoax.

There seem to be rumours of such hoaxes, but everything I see points to the reality of it, and nothing is pointing to hoaxes.

Every single one of them is a hoax.

Sounds like a hoax to me.

You know who's not confused on whether Trump ran on racial resentment?

Every white supremacists in the country. The fact that David Duke did not officially endorse trump (and only urged his listeners to volunteer for his campaign) is not I think a know out blow for the "its all good" crowd.

"Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke is calling Donald Trump's electoral victory "one of the most exciting nights of my life."

Duke, a white nationalist who unsuccessfully ran for Louisiana Senate, tweeted early Wednesday that his supporters played a major part in paving Trump's road to the presidency.
"Make no mistake about it, our people have played a HUGE role in electing Trump!" he wrote."

He's a typical politician, all eager to take credit for somethingthat had nothing to do with himself. In running for the Senate, he got 3 percent of the vote. He's as popular as the libertarian party.

He's as popular in Louisiana as the Libertarian party is nationwide.

Duke got over 38% of the vote for governor in 1991 election in LA,_1991

He was running against Edwin Edwards (whose slogan was 'Vote for the Crook. It's Important).

You know who’s not confused on whether Trump ran on racial resentment?

If drawing a beacon from David Duke, who has no employment history apart from trafficking in sex manuals and white supremicist literature, helps you feel better about yourself, fine.

I'm not sure what drawing a beacon means but I do think that the shouts of adulation from racists might help the observant point out the racists.

'who has no employment history'

Well, Duke was an elected member of the Louisiana House from 1989 to 1992. Maybe that was before you started paying any attention to him?

So every one of like 5,000 people? What can Trump do but disavow? Since the media has labeled Trump racist, isn't it completely expected that actual racists would then support him? After all, if he wins then everyone says that racism is back in.

Maybe he could appoint a couple of white supremacists convention delegates or appoint a major figure in the alt right WH Chief Stategist?

I'm sure that would help.

How about saying he's a big fan of a black supremacist? How about waiving a rainbow flag around on stage?

Its amazing how much press the left likes to Shower upon David Duke. I cant remember a single time when Duke has been brought up in any other context besides as a club that the left can use against those they dont like. Hell, i know actual racists who have never even mentioned Duke.

The nature of the contradiction you set, where left is portrayed as anti-racist (generally true) is troublesome in the way that it therefore suggests that the right is (and perhaps should be?) racist.

Most on the right would be pretty quick to distance themselves from Duke et al as well. And they wouldn't be as fake about it as Trump was.

You must be very young. His participation in the 1991 Gubernatorial election in Louisiana received national press attention and made its way into pop culture (I remember the quip about the race being between a crook [Edwin Edwards] and a neo-Nazi). As Scott Alexander himself documents, David Duke was well-known enough in the year 2000 that Donald Trump knew perfectly well who he was and mentioned him by name in dissociating himself from the Reform Party. Duke may not have done much in the past 10 years to warrant much national press coverage but the reality is that he was a justifiably notorious figure in the 1990s who could have enjoyed mainstream political success.

Summers is either being his usual bullying self, or is on a mission to make the ((())) nutters sound sane. Mr Cowen is having an adolescent moment. I think the prize goes to Scott Alexander.

4. Some of the accusations against Trump are so outrageous. One of the big accusations of Trump's racism is his view on the "Central Park Five" case where four black males and one hispanic male were accused of raping, and severely beating, almost to death a white female jogger in 1989.

The headline on "Trump wanted the Central Park Five executed. DNA tests proved their innocence. He's not backing down." Most other sites, like Huffington Post and Washington Post all make this assertion that the Central Park Five were proven innocent by DNA forensics.

This isn't true. The DNA forensics done later in 2002, 13 years after the incident, tied another man, Matias Reyes to the crime, by presence of his semen on the victim. But this never proved innocence of the Central Park Five. Investigating doctors were actually quite clear about that. From WSJ, "The doctors said their findings aren't evidence of the innocence or guilt of the [central park five]". They also said there was forensic evidence of multiple attackers.

In 1989, modern DNA forensics were not widely used. The 2002 DNA tests only proved the presence of Reyes semen on the victim. All five of the Central Park Five had blood, hair fibers, and semen on their clothing, and hair fibers matched that of the victim using pre-DNA forensic analysis. The samples were degraded later in 2002 and DNA analysis was not possible. All five members confessed to some involvement in the rape, not necessarily direct intercourse, but holding her down, or fondling her as she was raped. One of the Central Park Five had scratches he said were from the victim. Another Central Park Five suspect's family pleaded that he just held her down and wasn't the principal attacker to get his sentence reduced. Investigators said the separate confessions had large consistencies and levels of details not present in false confessions. And claims that police forced false confessions has almost zero supporting evidence.

The courts eventually, under huge political pressure, vacated the convictions in 2002. But even that is not an assertion or claim of proven innocence. There is still strong forensic evidence that all Central Park Five members had direct involvement in the 1989 crime. Asserting that they were "proven innocent" by DNA is just completely fabricated.

A second completely outrageous accusation is that Trump and Stephen Bannon are anti-semitic:

The main evidence cited is an article titled "Renegade Jew" written by David Horowitz. This implies that David Horowitz is also part of this anti-semitism. David Horowitz is a well known, very pro Jewish, pro Israel Jew. Accusing him of anti-semitism is just complete lunacy. Breitbart also featured Ben Shapiro as their most popular writer for a while. If Stephen Bannon was seriously anti-semitic in any way, Shapiro would have been the first to flag that.

Shapiro has specifically denied Bannon is racist or anti-Semitic.

Let's see if removing the daily wire link works better -

Shapiro has not made such a clear declaration, at least as of 3 days ago - here is a recent quote. 'Is Bannon Anti-Semitic And Racist? I have no evidence that Bannon’s a racist or that he’s an anti-Semite; the Huffington Post’s blaring headline “WHITE NATIONALIST IN THE WHITE HOUSE” is overstated, at the very least. With that said, as I wrote at The Washington Post in August, Bannon has openly embraced the racist and anti-Semitic alt-right – he called his Breitbart “the platform of the alt-right.”'

Shapiro continues in the following fashion, in case that excerpt was not clear enough - 'The alt-right, in a nutshell, believes that Western culture is inseparable from European ethnicity. I have no evidence Bannon believes that personally. But he’s happy to pander to those people and make common cause with them in order to transform conservatism into European far-right nationalist populism. That means that the alt-right will cheer Bannon along as he marbles Trump’s speeches with talk of “globalism” – and that Bannon won’t be pushing Trump to dump the racists and anti-Semites who support Trump anytime soon. After all, they love Bannon – actual white supremacists like Peter Brimelow called his August appointment “great news,” and Richard Spencer explained, “Breitbart has elective affinities with the Alt Right, and the Alt Right has clearly influenced Breitbart. In this way, Breitbart has acted as a ‘gateway’ to Alt Right ideas and writers. I don’t think it has done this deliberately; again, it’s a matter of elective affinities.” That doesn’t mean Bannon will push racist or anti-Semitic policy, or that he’ll be anti-Israel himself – unless it serves his interests.'

In other words, Shapiro does not know whether Bannon, personally, is a racist or anti-Semite - he just panders to them.

So, it seems to me that this is the lack-of-nuance Scott's complaining about in his post.

Claim #1: Bannon is a white nationalist and an anti-Semite.

Claim #2: Bannon is willing to work on a publication with people whose ideas are supportive of (and often supported by) white nationalists and anti-Semites.

Now, Claim #2 might very well be a good reason to condemn Bannon or refuse him a job in the administration. But Claim #2 is never going to be a good reason to toss around Claim #1. They're very different claims.

Even Claim #2 is ridiculous. Where is the evidence of anyone at Breitbart espousing anti-semitism? National Review and others are citing an article written by David Horowitz which is absurd. In the cited OP link on Bannonism, Bannon is giving some quite radical unguarded viewpoints that include a passionate support of the "judeo-christian" basis for the west. That is quite pro-Jewish, not anti-semitic.

I guess some people might buy that logic. Imagine that they'd think they're supremer after the fact as well ...

I mean, "The alt-right, in a nutshell, believes that Western culture is inseparable from European ethnicity." - that's not even particularly surprising as an idea, in practice.

If someone told you "We're going to have 1% immigration to Japan per year, and with that plus 0 natural increase among Japanese, after 50 years, it'll be around 50% non-Japanese in background, but don't worry, they'll totally be culturally Japanese and Japanese culture is totally separable from Japanese ethnicity", you'd know that was nonsense. Or for Thais, or Arabs, or Nigerians, or Indians, or just about anyone.

It's absolutely no different with the West. Western culture is not some special, ultra absorbing, open culture.

So in a real, practical sense, the two are inseparable.

The more honest position that's pro-migration is that, actually Western culture doesn't matter.

These are these people that believe, oh, sure, there are good things about us, but it's just openness and tolerance and individual rights. Who we are outside that, it isn't important. From that perspective, Western culture may go, but who cares, if tolerance survives?

I'm not sure I believe that (at all), but it is at least the honest perspective. The idea that in a practical sense, y'know, Western culture is this absorbing, open thing, so don't worry about 50% or total population replacement is just... who could believe that?

Japanese culture isn't really comparable to "Western" culture in this regard. Your first clue should be the comparators: are we talking about the culture of about 130 million people on a single archipelago, or are we talking about the culture of conservatively 750 million people (or more than a billion if you define "Western" a little more broadly) spread across three continents and which have already had fairly unrestricted immigration for centuries?

The reason that Western culture is more robust than Japanese culture in the face of immigration is that it already represents the durable ideas that survived tons of cultural conflict from many input cultures. Does that mean that it would be unchanged in the face of massive new cultural input? No. But it would be a lot less changed than Japanese culture was.

Thais, Arabs, Nigerians, Indians, etc., aren't half as ridiculous about such things.

Except for the first (Thais), there is such a huge amount of cultural and other diversity within each of these groups, the notion that their concerns about immigration would revolve around some such thing as "purity of racial stock" or anything just does not stand up to reality. As for the Thais, I don't have a clue, but there is a fair degree of diversity within the nation as well.

Anyways, if you think that not letting people experience your culture is a good way of protecting it in the long run, then I think you're gonna have a hard time convincing many people.

@ Michael, for most Western Cultures, we aren't talking about "Western" culture of 750 million people, but particular cultures of 80 million max.

Further Western Culture is not particularly unique in having experienced cultural influx, on a world stage. Most present day cultures have probably experienced more cultural change, usually from the West, than the West has had from elsewhere. Take Japan - see Meiji Japan, see how much Japan changed in response to the US occupation in the 20th century, see how much it was changed by cultural exchange it had through trade, see how much Chinese culture it absorbed before that. This is a culture which is at least as much of a net recipient and participant in cultural conflict as anything in the West.

So the idea that this demonstrates that the culture of the West is more durable seems wrong. For much of what it is about it's as dependent on a continuing ethnic core who are committed to its traditions as anywhere else, to be connected to its history, its particular social mores, etc.

Now if you care no more about it surviving than that it represents the survival of tolerance, then that might not change your position.

Someone like Bannon clearly thinks there is a West that matters (Judeo-Christian, etc.). That might be a load of rubbish, but if you think Western Culture exists and matters it seems obvious that it's survival can't be alienated from the continued survival and social dominance of its ethnic base. If you think there are a few ideas that matter, mostly around toleration and openness and other liberal things, but roughly, it doesn't matter if Western Culture survives at all, then that's about the only position that fits with enthusiasm for massive ethnic demographic change.

@Troll Me, if you think Thais / Nigerians / Indians would be *more* sanguine about even a 0.5% change in their population a year by tons of random worldwide cultures, and *less* concerned about the survival of their deep rooted culture, and would see it and be right to see it as likely to result in huge cultural replacement, then.... I really don't think you're right about this. At all. While there is local cultural diversity, this is like saying that "Oh, well, because there are all these different groups in Switzerland and the Balkans and Russia, they'd obviously care less about worldwide immigration than Sweden or Norway". Nonsense.

M seems to be changing the goalposts. Which are you arguing the value of? "Western culture" writ broadly, which is 750million+ people (300 million USA, 35 million Canada, 23 million Australia, 400 million "western Europe" with western Europe defined pretty narrowly), or some specific cultures of some specific Western European nations? Just to be clear, are you going to bat for France's particular quirks that must be preserved in a way that only France itself can carry on? Not, like, broad traditions of liberal democracy, but specifically the things that only France has that the US doesn't?

And what does culture even mean in this regard? If another 40 million people of a variety of cultural backgrounds came to France, would wandering around Paris have a different feel for a visitor? Of course. But would ethnically French people of traditional French backgrounds become unable to carry on French traditions? I don't particularly see why not.

Michael, "What actually *is* X culture? What is the value of X culture?" are fine questions to ask generally of cultures. You could write many essays on them, and people do, and I'd suggest you look up and read these if you're interested in the topic.

(As a question, I'd say that kind of skeptical, interrogative questioning that breaks down its subject is definitely one I'd apply more to pretty much all non-Western cultures before I'd point it's gaze at the West).

They are also generally questions for the people who are actually going to bat for the survival of Western Culture. That's beyond the scope of what I'm arguing here.

I'm arguing that, for Western culture, the idea that it will not practically survive without the survival of the associated ethnicity as a largely homogenous and socially separate group is actually the common sense position. Whether construed generally or within its particular narrow streams of national cultures. I'm also arguing that this would immediately be obvious as the common sense position for any other nation, and Western Culture does not have some special resilience and agnosticism of ethnic association that makes it an exception.

"Going to bat" for whether it should survive is not my business here - that's something that's beyond the scope and space of the MR comments section.

M - why don't you go read up about the diversity of languages and cultures in each of the countries I mentioned before trying to tell anyone what they would think about anything.

When there are 20 distinct languages and cultures in the same country, I don't think any of them are going to get worked up if 0.5% of foreigners arrive in the capital city or trading centres (the only places they'd end up).

Really, If 0.5% of the population showed up every year illegally as say, Chinese people or whites, and started enclaves where they all spoke Chinese or English, etc., etc., that would never cause a problem?

@Troll Me, look I know, for example, about the linguistic diversity of India. I also know that there are popular Hinduvatu politicians there who with a straight face discuss sterilising growing Muslim and Christian populations specifically because of cultural loss, and I know that the purity of lineage and anxiety and paranoia over loss of cultural subgroups certainly isn't *less* of a cultural issue in that country ( for one example, from a member of a group that's more suicidal than the Indian norm).

To me this seems like your dodging here, you're saying that they would handle whatever amount of migration with no concerns about cultural disconnection, because there's so much substructure already. Even though that substructure is of local origin and is not global. I don't actually believe that would be true to anyone with a knowledge of history. If some European nation had 20 different varieties of a Latin derived language, then they'd be totally open to any and all global migration and without any concerns of cultural discontinuity? The "West" is not different and specially robust to cultural intrusion, or specially xenophobic and closed (probably the *least* so).

I also think for most nations, if they had a political capital for their nation state and it was effectively a global city with a makeup unalike to the country and where international business constantly lobbies the national government for more effective policies for the global city, they would be concerned. *Less* tolerant than recent Western countries who've evolved in the same direction have been. Perhaps as a nation they'd rather have a city that is more in tune with the nation and which serves the local economy better, even if isn't as important a city in global rankings.

Since it seems like the daily wire is among the non-working links at this comment section, the headline for the Nov. 14 Shapiro article with the above articles is "3 Thoughts On Steve Bannon As White House 'Chief Strategist'"

Yes, and one of the most frequent byline we see now on Breitbart is "Joel Pollack". If that's not a jewish name, I do not know what is.

And so was Andrew Breitbart himself; and it's on record that Breitbart News Network was first conceived of, in Israel, by him and its co-founder *Larry Solov*. If anti-Semites really are flocking to such a site, I think that requires a little more explanation than these accusers are giving.

#4 Can someone please tell me why Yglesias' article is bad besides just telling me to read the SSC post? I am having trouble finding major holes in his argument except that it hasn't actually happened yet. It does not, however, seem very unlikely.

(Note that the SSC post was about Trump being racist or not, not about whether Trump is super-bad in other ways, so an wolf-related rejoinder is not really relevant.)

I didn't find it bad either. I just wished he would have taken its implications further and advocated for smaller government more generally. That the DC area is now the wealthiest areas in the nation point to systemic corruption. Either you have a lobbyist or you're not a big successful business or industry.

Yglesias’ article is considered bad because it appeared in Vox which tends toward the Left, and because you are at a Right Wing web site. The SSC post is good because Alexander is a Libertarian, and because you are at a Right Wing web site here at TC's site.

Alexander is (explicitly) not a libertarian. He is a centrist left-winger who voted for Clinton

How about some falsifiability tests, and some long term results tests.

1. Tyler (and Alex) - is there ANY set of historical facts, or ANY set of policies or results which might come to pass in the next 4 years, that would make you publicly say Trump is a more deserving president elect or did a better job than HRC likely would have done? If it IS NOT POSSIBLE for Tyler and/or Alex to ennumerate credible answers, we may well conclude they are simply members of the Blue Tribe and we can ignore their political views from now on.

2. Tyler (and Alex) - what if a fully informed electorate were to carefully and mindfully decide to be less rich (as a whole) traded off against having less immigration and less open trade, and that the society as a whole and most individuals were happy with this tradeoff. Would you change your arguments? Would you change fields?

Given that I have been here before, I can name the model. I did not vote for nor trust Bill Clinton. When his re-election rolled around I took measure of the economy, and centrist governance (a dynamic with confessional opposition for sure). I didn't vote for him again, but public morals were the only reason. I was happy with a stable and prosperous nation.

So, if Donald governs like his old buddy Bill, I might be happy for the same reasons again. Though perhaps he will still give me a reason to vote for someone else.

My phone took whatever I pecked out as closer to confessional than congressional.

Separation of Church and State!

If it is possible for you to say under any circumstances that Tyler or Alexander are "simply members of the Blue Tribe", then you must be pretty far to the Right. Or else today is the first time you read a post by either of those people. Are you Alt Right or what?

Is "liberal" the absolute worst smear word you can think up?

1) If you cannot prestate which counterfactual, which does not exist, would prove you right about something that never happened, then you're full of baloney and everything you ever say can be discredited. I bet some people who get really high scores on standardized tests might eat up that kind of stuff.

2) Why would a super power be working towards self sufficiency? Whatever the reality of the situation, that is how it will look to some, and preparations in response could only assume the worst. Is it not enough to kick out more immigrants? Or just raise trade taxes? Both at the same time is altogether too consistent with certain pathways that most of the world does not want to go down.

"we may well conclude they are simply members of the Blue Tribe"

What a bizarre insinuation. People who up until very recently were denouncing Trump in the strongest possible terms include several conservative talk radio personalities, the editors of the National Review, current and former senior Republican politicians, right-leaning foreign policy and national security leaders such as Gen. Michael Hayden, and a whole bunch of others. Almost nobody considered him a Republican in good standing until he secured the nomination and, now, anyone who opposes him should be presumed to be a partisan Democrat.

Seems like an attempt (intentional or not) to shame those with sufficiently blinding partisan bias to not criticize the guy for fear that they will be called "cucks", "liberals", or perhaps even worse, "blue".

More on #4:

a. Larry Summers - forced out at Harvard somehow feels its OK to dump on Trump for Trump's random remarks (see Scott Alexander for refutations...) So we are all expected to believe whatever jealous thing Larry says, because he didn't get away with it and Trump did?

b. We do NOT have 100 days to protect our institutions from being corrupted - all of them are already corrupt to one degree or another - they are full of humans, what did you expect. All this whole article actually says is that a new president only has moment for a short time and obstructionists should prepare for a "goal line stand" for that short time. It presumes that Vox knows best....

Interestingly, the Vox complaints about Trump being opaque and corrupt apply every bit to HRC as well if not more so....

Time will tell but the Summers article struck me as hysterical -- & i don't mean funny. Odd to read him writing something like that.

+1. This article made me sad. Somehow Summers reminds me of Winston Smith sitting in the Chestnut Tree Cafe at the end of 1984.

I said in a recent thread that "It is an odd dynamic when so many commentators seem to take Tyler’s essay as contrary to the established norms of “their” site."

Once more, with feeling, I guess.

There is no "Tyler's essay" so your comment is even more inscrutable

He posts from his phone, in a hurry, and describes the process as "pecking". What nuggets can we expect next from anon?

I don't always post from my phone, but when I do, I am usually sitting on a toilet.

I bought a "demolition" blade for my Skil saw and am having a fine old time reducing an old deck.

I don't want to defend Trump, I will just spend the next eight thousand words defending him instead of spending time with loved ones.

He defends reasoned discourse which I think is important

Fighting against bad methodology, particularly when it's extremely fashionable and dangerous to disagree with, is a virtue.

Getting a good measure on reality is important. Everyone is concerned with risk-adjusted distributions, but discovering the risk-neutral distribution is at the heart of rationalist science -- no matter where it falls on the scale of public appropriateness.

No, he performs the same role as Snopes. He takes very seriously the charge that Trump is x (for x fill in white supremacist or KKK etc), and examines the evidence.

If you read it, you would see that this is not tantamount to defending him. There are many accusations one can legitimately level at Trump, including childish, immature, inconsistent, incoherent in terms of public speaking, unfamiliar with basic facts, sloppy, litigious, rude, boorish, locker room humor etc. Any or all would have resulted in him losing to another candidate.) But white supremacist is not one of them.

4. Re: "I think it is naive, and suspect he has never really lived under deeply racist conditions"

Guys, I think all he's saying here is that he's more likely to be underestimating the risk if he's never experienced actual deeply racist conditions. For example, before you have your first serious car accident, you're more likely to underestimate the risk of having a car accident in the future. To some extent, Scott's post is based on his own subjective evaluation of statements and current developments, so Tyler's point merely goes to his credibility as an interpreter. Not sure how effective it is, but it's a fair point, and isn't importing some sort of weird perspectivalist epistemological assumption.

That's why the anti-white pogroms at the universities and in the media should not be laughed off, and should be treated as seriously destabilizing to society.

No, I don't agree that it should be laughed off, and I don't think Tyler thinks that either.

I agree that PC went way overboard in universities and the media, and I've told that to SJW types to their face and probably ruined a few friendships over it... but I still don't think that justifies giving a game show host nuclear weapons. This election is basically the white equivalent of blacks rioting in their own neighborhood -- it's like: dudes, I'm glad this makes you feel a bit better, but most likely you're just fucking yourself over!

Race-based thinking makes us idiots, and that's true for white people as well.

What do you make of the fact that support for Trump rose little among whites but more among minorities?

Minority groups were less eager to vote for an old white woman than young black man. For some, this was apparently completely unexpected.

I suspect that the days of the Democratic Party being able to win the Presidency with a white candidate are numbered, if not already over. That, to me, is the more interesting take on the election: it was not about the rise of white identity politics, but evidence of minority voters becoming the deciding (and hence controlling) force in the Democratic coalition.

And, to be clear, I think this portends a dangerous future, and one in which the Republican coalition becomes ever more about white identity politics and the Democratic coalition ever more about minority identity politics. I don't think there is necessarily a way to avoid this. My best answer is destroying both of our current Parties in the hopes that new dominant coalitions form that are tied to something besides ethnic/racial identity, but it seems like the New Boss might be the same as the Old Boss.

I'm guessing it was jobs, and to be fair I think that's basically why the Obama-to-Trump folks voted for him.

"Race-based thinking makes us idiots, and that’s true for white people as well." True, and well-put. That being said, are you really sincerely afraid of Trump using the US nuclear weapons?

The risk of Trump using nukes is very, very low, but nonetheless higher than Obama or Clinton in my opinion.

My real concern is how he would respond to a black swan event like 9/11. W promised a humble foreign policy and no nation building. Then everything changed.

Trump has already said he'll bomb the shit out of ISIS and target their families. That may be hyperbole for the moment but a major attack would
change that. Further Trump won't even pretend to care about collateral damage.

His supporters would no doubt cheer him on but the blowback could be grisly.

I am as well. It seems unbelievable but I also thought it was unbelievable that he could win

"This election is basically the white equivalent of blacks rioting in their own neighborhood — it’s like: dudes, I’m glad this makes you feel a bit better, but most likely you’re just fucking yourself over!"

The dichotomy of white=non-violent and black=violent probably will not be appreciate by many, especially given the different amounts of violence perpetrated by those working for the state which is experienced by different groups (namely, African Americans are more likely to suffer from excessive use of force). But it's an interesting way of looking at it.

"African Americans are more likely to suffer from excessive use of force"

Relative to levels of criminality?

It's not a fair point because it would discredit remarks by anyone in this country under 50 and anyone under 70 who had lived outside of about 4 states.

I'll agree it's a weak point since it just goes to credibility as an expert... Tyler should have argued to the merits. You'd want to argue: in X, Y, and Z societies where some form of identity-based prejudice went off the rails, that process began with A, B, C, and with the Trump folks you are seeing A, B, and C. Obviously, the big example we're thinking about here is Nazi Germany.

Other examples: India before the 1993 bombings/riots, 20th century Ireland, Rwanda in the 90s, modern Pakistan... the list goes on and on. I'm guessing if you looked for patterns, you'd begin to see some here... I'd love to read that article, even one arguing otherwise.

Most of his article are refuting claims made by others, "trump is a racist because of x" for instance. Where you grew up or what kind of racism you have experienced is totally meaningless in this context.

Wouldn't that apply to essentially all of his detractors as well? Are they all underestimating the risk too?

If this was the point Tyler was trying to make, it would seem to be incumbent on him to identify what particular background will lead someone to be capable of properly estimating risk. I mean, you note that people often underestimate the risk of something happening if it hasn't happened to them, but I would respond that people will often overestimate the risk of something happening to them once it does happen. Which of those is closer to accurate? What is the proper depth of racist conditions that one must have experienced to be a proper interpreter here?

Good point. Whatever the optimal background is, it probably isn't Scott's background, which is basically: successful professional who lived in an affluent liberal enclave his entire life (at least if I'm remembering his background correctly).

Yes, I know that comment cuts both ways with regards to all the affluent professional liberals who see racism everywhere. I don't really think they're the best judges either. Scott and them are basically two sides of the same coin.

For my own part, I can only speak to the fact that throughout my teens people ostracized me if they found out I was gay -- like, literally turned around mid-sentence and walked away. Or constantly being called gay and fag -- not sure they even suspected I was ACTUALLY gay, but they could tell it bothered me and it was just like blood in the water for a shark. Or the way my parents would turn the channel if anything relating to gays was mentioned, or changed the topic if it was brought up. To this day, my uncle won't talk to me -- like, if I say hi to him, he doesn't even respond. If you go through those experiences, and know how much it fucks you up, you tend to appreciate the risk of that sort of thing metastasizing into the wider culture and taking on new forms -- even if the risk has gone up just a bit, which (I'll grant) might objectively be the case here.

No, Scott is not basing this on "his own subjective evaluation", at all. He's actually looking at the evidence for some of the more outrageous, but widespread, claims about Trump. And Tyler is saying if Scott knew how bad racism was (and in some places is), Scott would not be so naive and foolish as to (essentially) defend the indefensible.

Seriously, go to the link and read Scott's interpretation of the "rapist" Mexicans comment, and tell me that wasn't subjective.

I imagine that you must be really confused when you see Julius Caesar (the play) and come to the Marc Anthony speech.

I didn't think it was subjective at all. I don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise if you're an impartial observer.

Is it ever a good idea to call a person or argument "naive"? I happen to think the idea of a post racial society "naive" but I wouldn't call an open borders libertarian "naive", just wrong. "Naive" adds no nuance and needlessly aggravates people.

Especially when you are a noted libertarian? Is there any ideology that less withstands the first contact with reality than libertarianism?

#6...And now for something completely different...I got some good titles from the lists.

Tyler, if Scott Alexander is naive, are you going to take him up on any of his offered bets, or suggest any alternative bets?

Back in '09 I had a student who had recently graduated from journalism school and, finding no other job, had gone to work for Yahoo News. His job was watching real-time tracking of clicks on their news stories and fine-tuning the wording of headlines and ledes to increase that metric. Does anyone here know how common that is?

That's basically how online marketing is done if you're in the business of putting stuff in front of people's eyeballs that they would actually choose to see on their own volition.

I haven't noticed the headlines or ledes of major news outlets changing with the frequency he described from his work at Yahoo.
Thanks for your input. Sounds like you have no specific knowledge bearing on the question I asked.

Are you sure you're not just denigrating the potential of journalism skills in media and business development?

Anyways, have a nice day too.

Are you sure you understood the entire three line post?

Larry Summers and Matt Yglesias really need to pay attention to this part of the Scott Alexander article:


And Larry needs to understand that no matter how deeply he genuflects and abases his capacity for logical thought, the "progressive" left will never forgive him for mention gender differences in IQ variances.

Oh I think Summers is beyond hoping for forgiveness. Rather, he is broken and trying to find some solace in his own humiliation. Sad.

I disagree. I think he's just the typical anti-White Leftist*. He is of course traumatized by his removal from Harvard, shown by this paragraph, with no mention of how he, you know, lost his job:

"I have the scars to show for speaking out against overdoing the idea of microaggression,[sic] the regulation of Halloween costumes and the prosecution of students for taking part in sombrero parties – all of which have struck me as “political correctness” run amok."

*And, sorry, but I can't help noticing ((())).

What Alexander describes here is not the view of all progressives, or even most progressives. Vox is a great publication in many ways. They have some good charts and graphs and statistics and interviews-- lots of good stuff. But it goes off the deep end on identity politics. However, I can't think of any other Left of Center publication that goes to this extreme in this area.

To refer to Vox's identity politics as if it's typical of the Left, isn't exactly a straw man, because vox does do it, and Vox leans Left. It's sort of a man who's 99% straw and has a few hairs from the head of a human.

One irony is that the Trump speech in that commercial that gets denounced as anti-Semitic so much was likely written by Trump's main speechwriter Stephen Miller, who is Jewish.

On odd thing for you comment on, given that you always do mean the Jews (unless it's the trannies, your other obsession).

The media never notices Jews in positions of power, not unless anyone non-kosher person criticizes them*, at which point suddenly their Jewishness becomes central.

*Perfectly fine when Bernie Sanders does it.

"the “progressive” left will never forgive him for mention gender differences in IQ variances."

Isn't that about the 50th time at least on this forum that someone has gone out of their way to mention this point? There are plenty of explanations for that observation, but instead of proposing societal explanations which would explain or defend the reality of the observed outcome on the distribution on some standardized test, all I see is repeated frustration at the nerve someone had to criticize him.

They didn't just criticize him. They sought to punish him and thereby silence him and anyone who might utter something similar.

You realize he only posited genetic differences as ONE possible contributor to the differences observed between men and women in that area- one of three if I recall.

I recommended checking out this Reddit thread about experiences people have had meeting Trump in person. The overwhelming impression from people who have come across him over decades is that he's a very nice, courteous, considerate guy. This suggests that his weird public persona during the campaign is something of a put-on.

The reality is a bit more complicated. The overwhelming consensus does seem to be that Trump is very nice and courteous to people the first time he is introduced to them. However, if you criticize him or if your business with him goes less than perfectly, he apparently will not hesitate to attack you in a crude, vulgar, and/or dishonest manner.

A clear example of this is Megyn Kelly. Before Trump started his campaign, Kelly has claimed that Trump used to occasionally call her and send her notes complimenting her work. Then, once his campaign started and she gave him a hard time, he went on the attack as is well known from several of his outbursts:

This paints the picture of someone who knows how to be charming, gentlemanly and professional to get what he wants but who also has a hair-trigger temper and incredibly thin skin.

Perhaps, but again, does he actually have a long history of picking up fights with everybody who criticizes him, or is it something he started doing only during the campaign?

His public feud with Rosie O'Donnell happened in 2006 and he had bizarre feuds with Bill Maher and Jon Stewart in 2013, two years before he launched his campaign.

And then there is his publicly stated philosophy of "If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard." That kind of disproportionate response is, at the core, sociopathic.

Seems like there's a heck of a lot of electrons being wasted by people who expect some kind of counter-Alexander essay from TC. He read the essay, was unconvinced but felt it was worth passing on. It's Alexander's job to convince not TC's job to debunk.

IMO there's some truth to his point that the media over emphasizes the race war narrative. Partly because it gets attention and partly as a way to signal to black and other voters that this guy doesn't care about your issues. Which is the truth. The GOP doesn't care about racial equality and would be very happy if we never talk about it again.

And I think Trump is worse than the past few candidates for them in both who he chooses to cater to and in how blunt and unthinking he can be in how he chooses his words. But it's hard to say whether this will translate into radically different policies on these issues than another similar GOP candidate might.

Scott noted on Twitter yesterday that more than 200,000 people have read his article, and lots of them seem to be pretty impressed. It would be interesting to get a genuine attempt at response from someone like Tyler instead of that insultingly anti-intellectual dismissal.

I wonder if he has been offered a writing position. I imagine at this stage he would refuse given his medical career, but I have to think he'll end up there. He's more valuable writing.

I think him being in daily contact with what are often the dregs of humanity gives him a valuable perspective that makes his writing better.

I Google'd to see why Trump was thought of as a racist. My impression of the reasons I read were at best naive.

What's more, very few of those calling Trump a racist have lived under deeply racist conditions, which means that their opinions can be dismissed.

How is Summer's angst over Trump different from that exhibited toward Ronal Reagan during Reagan's run for the Governor of California in 1966? The California Democratic State Committee released a 29 page report, "Ronald Reagan, Extremist Collaborator." The thesis was that “Ronald Reagan is an extremist’s collaborator in California. He endorses their projects, promotes their policies, takes their money. He is their ‘front man.’ Meanwhile, he pretends to be a moderate, middle-of-the-roader. The record belies him. It shows that he has collaborated directly with a score of top leaders of the super-secret John Birch Society.”

Scott Alexander: 8k words of exhaustively researched and documented essay, with careful notes where intelligent people disagree with him, and links to their arguments.

Tyler Cowen: Dismisses all of it with a breezy ad hominem non sequitur. Pathetic. If you had a ghost of an argument, I don't think you'd have stooped to such a disgraceful and intellectually void slur. This exchange, in your parlance, raises my estimation of Scott, and lowers my estimation of you.

Niсe post. I was checking constantly this blog and I'm іmpresѕeԀ!

Very helpful infⲟ specifіcally the last part :) I care for
such information much. I was looking for this particular information for a very long time.
Thank уou and good lᥙck.

Comments for this post are closed